02-16-2011, 10:55 PM
Somebody said that net-qadash means 'we will holy' not 'let be holied'.
My Aramaic grammar is not sufficient but what is the right explanation?
My Aramaic grammar is not sufficient but what is the right explanation?
02-16-2011, 10:55 PM
02-17-2011, 03:35 AM
Shlama Akhi.
It's an incomplete phrase. Neth-Qadash Shmakh is the complete phrase. Be Holy Your Name. (Or in proper English, Holy is Your Name.)
The next phrase is similar. Teh-teh Malkuthakh. Come your Kingdom. Or, May Your Kingdom come.
Shamasha
It's an incomplete phrase. Neth-Qadash Shmakh is the complete phrase. Be Holy Your Name. (Or in proper English, Holy is Your Name.)
The next phrase is similar. Teh-teh Malkuthakh. Come your Kingdom. Or, May Your Kingdom come.
Shamasha
02-17-2011, 05:40 PM
The way that I interpret it is that the th in the interior of an imperfect verb turns the subject into the one being acted upon, instead of the subject initiating the action. For example, if we assume that "sanctify" is the verb, as Etheridge did, then n:qadesh = "to-sanctify" and neth:qadash = "to-be-sanctified"
"Our-father of-in-the-heavens, to-be-sanctified thy-name." Or possibly "to-be-hallowed thy-name."
Granted, most translators seem to use "be-hallowed", or "be-holy" as Paul suggested. So I guess I stray a bit in that I prefer to use the "to" prefix for imperfect verbs. Which would make the follow-up verse:
"To-come thy-kingdom ..."
"Our-father of-in-the-heavens, to-be-sanctified thy-name." Or possibly "to-be-hallowed thy-name."
Granted, most translators seem to use "be-hallowed", or "be-holy" as Paul suggested. So I guess I stray a bit in that I prefer to use the "to" prefix for imperfect verbs. Which would make the follow-up verse:
"To-come thy-kingdom ..."
02-18-2011, 01:06 PM
Thanks all!
Is it possible that the one who asked me did apply Hebrew grammar instead of Aramaic?
Is it possible that the one who asked me did apply Hebrew grammar instead of Aramaic?